NC: North Carolina Kicks Sex Offenders Out of Libraries, Parks, and Fairs

This is a perfect example of why we cannot depend entirely on having the courts resolve the anti-RC hysteria. Court decisions are like the game of whack-a-mole: hit one bad law and another pops up in a never ending cycle.

FACT: If the public did not see us as monsters, politicians wouldn’t have incentive to pass endless anti-RC bills.

FACT: the public sees us as monsters, so politicians will keep trying to pass laws against us. And when one law is struck down, another pops up slightly rewritten.

SAD FACT: I know a lot of my fellow RCs say that it is a waste of time to show up to events and speak up. I know that it is often because they are scared.

FACT: I have seen people’s attitude changes when we are willing to put a human face on the RC hysteria.

FACT: It’s easier for people to believe stereotypes of a people group when they don’t know anyone personally in that group, BUT when they know someone in that group who breaks the stereotype, they are less likely to continue to believe the stereotype. You can read about a personal encounter I had here:
https://all4consolaws.org/2016/07/peaceful-protest-in-oakland-attracts-more-than-40-people/#comment-156763

Yes, we need to continue fighting in the courts.

But we also need to show up, stand up, and speak up to leaders and groups in the halls of government, and to other individuals when appropriate.

As the attitudes of the public and lawmakers change, less bad laws will be submitted and existing bad laws will be whittled away.

We need to get together with Canada and make tiering a priority. Their researchers are on the right track. Canada was an abolitionist country before the US. It makes them superior to us in that respect. It’s not the Canadian researchers fault that California politicians do not take all of their recommendations seriously. Hanson and his team have said in their literation that after 17 crime-free years, the risk of committing a sex crime is that of someone in the general population. They have said that the number of years in the community reoffense-free should be taken into account in registry systems. It’s not the fault of the Canadian researchers or CASOMB who support their research that California politicians, other than the few who bring these bills to the committees who are our friends, don’t support tiering with a 17 year maximum tier duration. It’s the fault of polticians like that Joel guy who votes for every restriction against registrants and the likes of people like him funded by Crime Victims United. It’s not the fault of the politicians who are our friends that they don’t initially propose the 17 year max duration because as we see, even the tiering with a lieftime category is not getting passed. That must be what is meant by incrementalism. Not all the research can be made into policy all at once apparently.

My question is who does this pertain to? People on probation and parole or anyone who must register? I take my kids to the library all the time and we may be moving to North Carolina next year. I’ve been out since 2007 and have never had probation or parole.